Socialists vs. Radical Islam: When Extremists Collide

Yesterday, we published an opinion piece by former Congressman Bob Barr.

The piece addressed issues of censorship in relation to Charlie Hebdo and the attacks on the publication’s staff.

Readers of Liberty News Now had mixed reactions to the piece but one reader in particular brought up a few facts that are worth discussion.

“Kentclizbe” reacted with this comment:

You can’t be serious can you Bob?
“Free Speech?”
Charlie Hebdo and its staff were/are communists!
They fired a cartoonist in 2009 for “hate speech!” For a cartoon he published in their magazine!
In fact, they had him criminally prosecuted! For “hate speech” and “anti-semitism!”
Yay for Free Speech!
Who do you think you’re in bed with?
And, as you say, “The irony is, these chest-pounders are the ones stifling that very freedom here in the United States.” Isn’t it a bit ironic that the same communists at Charlie Hebdo who want to publish “hate speech” about Islam with no consequences, have their own cartoonists arrested for “anti-semitism?”
51% of Americans want to “criminalize hate speech?”
Well, guess what? Your new best friends in France already have!
Why, they’ve arrested 54 people in the last week, on charges of exactly that: “hate speech!”
Whose side are you on?

We took a look at these facts, and sure enough they are correct.

Charlie Hebdo, despite their tragedy, was a hypocrite of a publication.

But this gets into the deeper discussion of the lines that were drawn that led to this tragedy by two unyielding factions, Socialists and Radical Islam and their similarities.

Both Socialists and radical Muslims demand adherence and respect for their views, culture and laws.

Both factions also use tactics of aggression against their opposition. With Hebdo, it was delivered with a pencil, with the radical Muslims, it was delivered with a bullet.

Both can be devastating.

Among both groups, “hate” is a tank that must be filled daily.

The biggest difference between these factions is in their strategy in dealing with conflict and achieving victory.

Radical Muslims get straight to the point and start blasting without the chitchat.

Socialists on the other hand intentionally instigate violence to gain sympathy.

This is straight out of Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals:

Rule #10: “If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.” Violence from the other side can win the public to your side because the public sympathizes with the underdog.

And if you take a look of Alinsky’s 11 other rules, you’ll find that the Charlie Hebdo followed those rules to perfection.

While there is no excusing the despicable acts of the murderers who killed 12 people in France, the narrative leading up to the attacks should be a wakeup call to the opposition of the political left.

One of their goals is to push their opposition so hard, through ridicule and debasement, to the point were violence is the outcome – as Alinsky put it in Rule #5, “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.”

While the cultural mindset of a radicalized Muslim doesn’t allow them to simply ignore ignorance, for Christians, conservatives and libertarians, decades of political and cultural conflict with socialists and liberals have led to benign reaction in the face of provocation.

Others like Rush Limbaugh and James O’Keefe have turned Alinsky’s tactics against the left – which has and will continue to lead to violent reactions.

Because, in the end, Socialists and radical Muslims share one other common trait – irrational violence.